Commonwealth v. Kristian A. Chown, April 29, 2010
76 Mass. App. Ct. 684
Probable Cause, License to Operate a Motor Vehicle
The defendant was indicted for operating a motor vehicle without a license in violation of G.L. c. 90, §§10, 21. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence gained after the defendant’s arrest which claimed that the officer had no probable cause to arrest the defendant. The case came before the appeals court on leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal. The appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, finding that probable cause to arrest existed and that the motion to suppress should have been denied.
Facts
The defendant was pulled over for speeding after leaving the restaurant where he worked as a bartender. The sergeant who pulled over the defendant noticed that the car had New Brunswick license plates and a smashed back window. The sergeant recognized the driver immediately because the sergeant was a frequent patron at the restaurant where the defendant worked, and when he asked the defendant for his license and registration the defendant produced a valid New Brunswick driver’s license and could not find the truck’s registration. The sergeant knew the defendant previously held a Massachusetts driver’s license, and when he ran the defendant’s information through his computer system it revealed numerous in state motor-vehicle violations and license suspensions and reinstatements. At this point the sergeant arrested the defendant for operating without a license, not having his registration, and speeding. Because the car had a broken back window and was in a public lot, it would need to be towed and secured, so the sergeant conducted a vehicle inventory search during which he found a backpack containing drugs in the backseat and noticed a Barnstable town dump sticker on an intact portion of the defendant’s truck window.
In granting the defendant’s motion to suppress the judge cited the language of G.L. c. 90, where it, “limits the operation of a motor vehicle owned by a non-resident and registered in a different state or country to no more than thirty days in the aggregate in any one year.” The judge concluded that because the arrest happened on January 20th, 2006, it would have been impossible for the defendant to have been driving for more than thirty days in that year.
Holding
The appeals court first noted that, “wading through the various provisions of c. 90 is like driving a car without the windshield wipers on a dirt road on the side of a mountain at night during a blizzard.” After this observation the court discussed that while there are provisions in c. 90 that allow non-residents the ability to drive in Massachusetts without obtaining a Massachusetts license or registering their car in Massachusetts, like if they are just visiting or are here for work or school. However as soon as an individual becomes a resident of Massachusetts they are required to obtain a Massachusetts license and registration in order to legally operate their motor vehicle in Massachusetts. The court noted stated that because the sergeant had a reasonable basis to conclude that the driver was a Massachusetts resident who required a license, and that not having one the defendant was subject to arrest. The sergeant’s reasonable belief was sufficiently based on the fact the sergeant knew the defendant had lived and worked in Massachusetts for years, possessed a local driving record dating back to 1989, had formerly possessed a Massachusetts license, had a dump sticker on his truck, and told the officer he was going to the registry the next day to get a Mass. license.
One justice dissented, stating that because this was a routine traffic stop in which the defendant produced a valid driver’s license, there was no basis for arrest. Failing to produce the registration is not an arrestable offence and that if the officer had reason to belief the operator had been in the commonwealth for more than thirty days a copy of the defendant’s insurance policy should have been requested. Had the defendant then failed to produce his insurance certificate it would have created an evidentiary presumption at a trial not probable cause to arrest. Lastly the dissent states that the defendant’s in-state driving record and previous Massachusetts residency was not probable cause to arrest because independent of those facts the defendant might have reestablished Canadian residency.
76 Mass. App. Ct. 684
Probable Cause, License to Operate a Motor Vehicle
The defendant was indicted for operating a motor vehicle without a license in violation of G.L. c. 90, §§10, 21. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence gained after the defendant’s arrest which claimed that the officer had no probable cause to arrest the defendant. The case came before the appeals court on leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal. The appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, finding that probable cause to arrest existed and that the motion to suppress should have been denied.
Facts
The defendant was pulled over for speeding after leaving the restaurant where he worked as a bartender. The sergeant who pulled over the defendant noticed that the car had New Brunswick license plates and a smashed back window. The sergeant recognized the driver immediately because the sergeant was a frequent patron at the restaurant where the defendant worked, and when he asked the defendant for his license and registration the defendant produced a valid New Brunswick driver’s license and could not find the truck’s registration. The sergeant knew the defendant previously held a Massachusetts driver’s license, and when he ran the defendant’s information through his computer system it revealed numerous in state motor-vehicle violations and license suspensions and reinstatements. At this point the sergeant arrested the defendant for operating without a license, not having his registration, and speeding. Because the car had a broken back window and was in a public lot, it would need to be towed and secured, so the sergeant conducted a vehicle inventory search during which he found a backpack containing drugs in the backseat and noticed a Barnstable town dump sticker on an intact portion of the defendant’s truck window.
In granting the defendant’s motion to suppress the judge cited the language of G.L. c. 90, where it, “limits the operation of a motor vehicle owned by a non-resident and registered in a different state or country to no more than thirty days in the aggregate in any one year.” The judge concluded that because the arrest happened on January 20th, 2006, it would have been impossible for the defendant to have been driving for more than thirty days in that year.
Holding
The appeals court first noted that, “wading through the various provisions of c. 90 is like driving a car without the windshield wipers on a dirt road on the side of a mountain at night during a blizzard.” After this observation the court discussed that while there are provisions in c. 90 that allow non-residents the ability to drive in Massachusetts without obtaining a Massachusetts license or registering their car in Massachusetts, like if they are just visiting or are here for work or school. However as soon as an individual becomes a resident of Massachusetts they are required to obtain a Massachusetts license and registration in order to legally operate their motor vehicle in Massachusetts. The court noted stated that because the sergeant had a reasonable basis to conclude that the driver was a Massachusetts resident who required a license, and that not having one the defendant was subject to arrest. The sergeant’s reasonable belief was sufficiently based on the fact the sergeant knew the defendant had lived and worked in Massachusetts for years, possessed a local driving record dating back to 1989, had formerly possessed a Massachusetts license, had a dump sticker on his truck, and told the officer he was going to the registry the next day to get a Mass. license.
One justice dissented, stating that because this was a routine traffic stop in which the defendant produced a valid driver’s license, there was no basis for arrest. Failing to produce the registration is not an arrestable offence and that if the officer had reason to belief the operator had been in the commonwealth for more than thirty days a copy of the defendant’s insurance policy should have been requested. Had the defendant then failed to produce his insurance certificate it would have created an evidentiary presumption at a trial not probable cause to arrest. Lastly the dissent states that the defendant’s in-state driving record and previous Massachusetts residency was not probable cause to arrest because independent of those facts the defendant might have reestablished Canadian residency.
